This subject is near and dear to my heart, so in true Vintage fashion I'm throwing it out there for your thoughts. I hope I don't offend anyone.

I grew up during the 60's & 70's with my worst nightmares and fears revolving around nuclear armageddon. As a bright kid, I think I understood way too much about the power of these weapons (MIRVd missles that could shower down death, multi-megaton H-bombs, etc...). There were so many movies and books about this subject that it's permanently embedded in my psyche. The Cold War represented the potential death of civilization as we knew it. The capitulation of the Sovs in the late 80's changed the world for me. Though there is always a possibility of a radical coup in modern-day Russia or one of the -stans, I find it hard to imagine a global nuke war being the result.

As a result, I do not view the current threats of terrorism by either Al Qaeda or any other terror group with any real trepidation. I don't want to belittle 9/11 folks -- and being from New York you can bet I have strong feelings about it -- but, global terrorism does not make me lose sleep at night, and it doesn't make me feel we should change our country one iota to adjust to it. I'm sure that makes it obvious how I feel about the current administration's policies, but let's not go down that rathole.

Does terrorism scare you? Has it changed your life (other than making you wait longer at airports)? What's your perspective on this? Do you feel that the average American is justified in carrying around angst over terrorism?

 

Wow, good topic Chaz

I have to agree; there is little comparison. Unfortunately, I think people seem more afraid of terrorism now than we were of nuclear war back then. I think part of that comes from the fact that nuclear weapons were in the hands of people who really preferred not to use them, whereas terrorists seem anxious to carry out their attacks whenever and wherever possible.

Statistically, the odds of your being the victim of a terrorist act are incredibly slim. The tragedy of 9/11 was by far the worst terrorist act in history, yet it took less than 4000 lives. That

 

(I think I did that on the other thread, but just so there isn't confusion )
And let me just add to the mix. I am hearing the the Ridge revelation that terrorists were going to "disrupt" the election, seems to be a predecessor for and "postponement" of said election. I am not a paranoid person, but...

By: ERICA WERNER - Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

"I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion." Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City -- and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said.

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said.

Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there.

"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."

NOW THAT SCARES ME!!!!

 

Nothing to be afraid of, Zip... if he falls any further behind in the polls, Bush will simply declare the elections unsafe and have his buddies on the supreme court appoint him to an indefinite term extension. (Just until he deems that "safe" elections can be held... perhaps 2067?)

 

Does terrorism scare me? Not really. There is little, if anything, I can do about it so what purpose does running around scared do me? Does it concern me? Greatly. Right now it takes something like hijacking planes or what not to cause great bodily harm. However, as technology increases the risk of greater destruction increases as does the ability of the common person to get the materials needed to create such weapons. A man in New Zealand, for less than $5000, was able to create a functional cruise missile out of parts he bought off the internet.

While the trajedies of 9/11 did result in a relatively small number of casualties, to me the real message of that tragedy (btw the company I worked for at the time had an office in those buildings and we lost several hundred colleague) was that we are vulnerable even on our own soil.

I'm concerned about the possibility of a terrorist group getting hold of something more deadly than planes, such as anthrax or some other biological weapon that could potentially take out many more lives than 9/11 did.

The worst thing about it all is I have no faith in those whose job it is to deal with these issues. The CIA is like the keystone cops and our politicians (on both sides) have their heads buried in the sand. But that's another topic

 

 

not to get off topic here but Kerry/Edwards are 4-6 points ahead in the polls right now in what should be their highest rating period. My dear political astute friends I'm you are aware of this somewhat unsettling stat which bodes very poorly for the Libs ........ I actually feel sorry for Kerry/Edwards. GW has yet to take the gloves off and campaign.... my friends this election will be blowout, Bush by 12 percent at least and wins Florida in a landslide. You heard it here first.

 

I fear you may be right, Charlie!

 

strike, folks,

This cuts to the quick of something I was trying to convey. I honestly believe that any time folks are entrusted with the kinds of rights/power to "deal with" terrorism, without fail they will be unable to avoid abuse and/or ineptitude in so doing. This is a correlary on the old saw "power corrupts..."

What I was hoping to shed light on was something in drewchie's post -- terrorism is insidious. Absolutely. But fear of terrorism can lead our great country into something far worse. By reacting out of fear, we screw the pooch on our democracy, and we entrust great power to those who would quell the fear. It's an age-old story, and we need to learn from history.

The Sovs presented a real threat. Reagan and his predecessors, thank god, put that threat to bed. Terrorism is an annoyance, but we should not fear it.

All that said, there is a definitely power to Strike's comment about concern for how technology will increase terrorists' capabilities. I wouldn't deny this. I believe this is where vigilance takes over (IMO).

Am I making sense?

 

To quote Yogi Berra, "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."

There is still plenty of time left for both to gain or lose points. Charlie, I would strongly advise against declaring victory until the votes are counted.